text:
What are the approximate total training costs of flight school?
I don't really understand how pilots fund their training and then, how it is paid back. Could someone possibly provide a 'timeline' that covers:

How much does flight school/training cost from being a day 1 beginner, to getting a job as an FO on a commercial budget airline in a jet?
How do most people fund this? (Loans, grants, family wealth?)
If it is typically borrowed, how many years (on average) do pilots spend paying off their training?

I will ask the two below as a separate question as they are about career progression, not financing.

After becoming an FO, how long (on average) does it take to become a captain?
What is the approximate difference in salary between a captain and an FO?

Note: Not asking this for myself, I am too old (30) and not in a position to pursue this. I am just interested, and thought it might help other people who are interested in making a career of flying.

those are 5 different questions, please pick one or this will most likely be closed as too broad

Hello, I answered your first three questions and left out the last two. I'd suggest removing them and asking a separate question; since the first 3 are about financing pilot training and the last 2 are about career progression.

The challenges of getting into the major airlines is not unlike getting to the top of any high skill profession but now may be the best time to try.  I understand there is a looming severe pilot shortage in the US due to the traditional biggest source drying up, the military is producing far fewer pilots than ever before. Airlines may need to fill the gap with paid (partially, at least)  from-scratch training.

This does vary across the world

@Ben Hence asking for averages

Average is a fairly useless metric fot this IMHO.If it costs 10K in Place A and 50K in Place B how does that help anyone in Place C?

@Jamiec But does it really vary that much? The answer gives an average of 100k. Are you saying that you could train for half that cost outside the U.S?

the answer gives you an average with no backup evidence whatsoever. I suspect (again, without evidence) that  there is a wild variation in training costs throughout the world

Who says it's paid back?  You go to college, you get a degree, you use any excess income to pay for your flight training. Not all of us want a career as an FO, some of us just enjoy flying for flying's sake. Vs being bus drivers in the sky meeting someone else's schedule.

@CrossRoads That is a terribly degrading thing to say. I'd wager there is a significant difference in character between most bus drivers and pilots :)

OK, glorified bus drivers :)  I'd take it back if I could still edit my comment.

this question is on the broad side (and possibly opinion-based). The details obvious vary between continent. Airlines in the same continent generally have similar schemes.
First thing first, you are not too old to pursue an airline career with that is what you desire, albeit on the old side of the spectrum.
How much does it cost from day one (no experience) to qualified in airliner (second officer / first officer)?
Roughly $100,000 USD. (If you're interested in a break-down, please ask a separate question).
How do most people fund this?
Most people fund their initial training themselves, i.e. up to solo-qualified, PPL or even IFR.
Then it depends on where you are. A number of flight schools in the United States offer loans (example) to students pursuing professional aviation qualifications. These schools will then recommend their graduates to airlines (example).
In Asia, airlines tend to fund the training on day one, from zero experience all the way to second officer (example), with the condition that once you complete training, you must fly with the airline for a number of years (or pay back your training cost if you want to leave). Competition for these openings are tough. Airlines use a rigid recruitment process to filter candidates, since they are committing a large amount of capital on an individual. Still, not everyone who make it into the cadet program graduate.
You can get around the tough competition if you are rich. I've heard of a story where a person goes to the same flight school where the airline sent their cadet pilots, and fund everything himself. Upon returning, he was hired by this airline immediately.
If it is typically borrowed, how many years (on average) do pilots spend paying off their training?
Ballpark figure around 3~6 years. I have no statistics on this.
Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with the linked flight schools and/or airlines.

There is alot of opinion in this answer, without any evidence to back it up. It would benefit from some to make a good answer great.

@Jamiec The answers to the first and third question varies greatly with region, airline, global economy and the circumstances of that individual. I admit I do not have statistics to back them up.


text:
Does Nitrogen inside commercial airliner wheels prevent blowouts on touchdown?
I just watched the first episode of Inside Mighty Machine where civil engineer-turned-host, Chad Zdenek, discussed innovations of the 747. One innovation he discussed was the increased number of wheels and trucks, along with this tidbit:

When the 747 touches down, the wheels must accelerate from 0 to 150 mph in a heartbeat, making them skid before they start to spin. That's why they smoke on touchdown. That friction causes heat to build inside the wheel, creating the risk of an explosion, so the 747's tires are filled with nitrogen, an inert gas which, unlike oxygen, won't aid combustion. That helps protect the plane from blowouts and keep landings safe.

That seems like an oversimplification and backhandedly suggests that the alternative is to fill the tires with pure oxygen—a surefire recipe for combustion I would think.
So, (1) is nitrogen really "the thin line" between safe landings and blowouts on modern commercial airliners and (2) is nitrogen landing gear inflation a legitimate innovation of the 747?

Your title says "prevent", but the quote says "protect". Those are quite different. "Prevent" means "it doesn't happen", "protect" means "the frequency decreases".

Does "protect the plane from blowouts" mean reduce the frequency of blowouts, or minimise the damage from a blowout should one occur?

@Acccumulation Thanks for the English lesson... armed with that I'm now going to march down to the local police station and demand they change their slogan to "To serve and prevent"! ;)

@Michael No, that's the motto of Planned Parenthood.

@Acccumulation: Perhaps you’re referring to some technical/legal sense I’m not aware of, but un normal use, “prevent” can perfectly well mean “reduce the frequency of”.  Most statements that “X prevents Y” mean “X prevents a significant amount of Y” not “X prevents 100% of Y”, just as most statements “X protects Z from Y” mean “X protects Z from most of the danger of Y” not “…from 100% of the danger of Y”.

Apart from the paragraph you quoted, here are a few more reasons.

Dry nitrogen is specified for aircraft use. I believe the rules say that any gas used cannot exceed 5% oxygen content. Because its dry it reduces corrosion.
Nitrogen moleculeas are slightly larger than oxygen and takes longer to escape.. hence tyres stay inflated longer.
But more importantly, nitrogen has a lower rate of expansion/contraction than normal air. An aircraft wheel has to live in sub-zero (at 40,000ft) and blistering hot (IIRC about 500deg C will trigger hot brakes warning). A gas with a low expansion rate cf temp is desirable. This trait has been put to good use by unscrupulous 'performance auto shops' which claim better handling with nitrogen in the tyres...

How does 3) work? Doesn't nitrogen behave according to the ideal gas law?

@DeltaLima The ideal gas law is an approximation that assumes molecules have zero volume. The level of approximation you get will be different for different gases, so it's not impossible that something like this could be true. Wikipedia mentions the water content of compressed air vs nitrogen being a significant issue here, though surely one could dehydrate the air if that was the only issue.

They may be most worried about moisture.  It can condense, lowering pressure at cold temperatures (or even freeze, unbalancing the wheel).  At higher temperatures, it can turn back to vapor (steam), raising pressure undesirably.  Pure N2, and Air (79% N2) are otherwise similar.

It should be noted that air contains almost 80% nitrogen. Nobody is filling tires with pure oxygen. The characteristics of air are in between those of its constituents.

I was with you until #3. The ideal gas constant for air is 287 and for nitrogen it's 296. A difference of 3%.

@DavidRicherby I agree on the water being the issue. At lower temperature/ higher pressures, there will be condensation. But when comparing dry air to nitrogen, there is no difference in expansion vs temperature.

@bogl And with repeated inflations and oxygen preferentially leaking out, that should mean the actual nitrogen concentration in a tire inflated with ordinary air should eventually approach 100%.

A 500C "hot brake" warning is for the temperature of the brake rotor, NOT the tire. At 500C (932F) the tires would have long since been left behind as a strip of smoking molten rubber on the runway.

Thanks for that.  The story the "the tire exploded 15 minutes after takeoff" sounds more like lower air pressure of altitude.  At 200 psi, these tires don't need a chemical reaction to do a lot of damage when they "let go".  But I do not wish to discourage use of standardized dry N2 to increase safety.

For air in scuba tanks the ideal gas law is valid up to 200 bar and invalid for 300 bar. Pressure in an aircraft tire is very much lower than 200 bar. The difference of 80 % to 100 % nitrogen does not matter at those low pressure tires, low when compared to a 200 bar scuba tank.

There is some truth in the claim about inerting.  Mostly, blowouts are as a result of high temperatures weakening the rim and tyre and increasing gas pressure within it, rather than being the result of chemical explosions. However, overheated tyres can decompose to produce gaseous products that can explode in air at high pressure and temperature and there have been airworthiness directives related to this (see, e.g., FAA Advisory Circular 20-97B).
Also, having oxygen in the tyres will oxidize the rubber to some extent, weakening it.  Of course, the outside of the tyre is bathed in oxygen anyway, but at much lower pressure, so there's much less of it around.

In addition to what the current answers mention, it should be noted that the danger is not merely theoretical, though blowouts on touchdown aren't necessarily the primary concern.
Mexicana flight 940 was the deadliest 727 accident as well as the deadliest accident on Mexican soil with 167 deaths. Accident investigators found that a tire had been serviced with regular air instead of pure Nitrogen. A brake malfunctioned and overheated during the takeoff run. This caused the tire to heat up to the point that the oxygen in the tire chemically reacted with the tire itself to the point that the tire exploded fifteen minutes after takeoff. This severed hydraulic, fuel, and electrical lines, which then resulted in an in-flight fire at cruising altitude. The pilots declared an emergency and tried to return to Mexico City, but ultimately lost control and crashed into a mountain before they could get back to MEX, killing everyone on board.

This incidentally answers the second part of the question : if it was required on the 727, it probably pre-dates the 747.

This type of accident happened already in 1963, if not before. At that time it only lead to the use of less flammable (but otherwise quite nasty) hydraulic fluid.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

authors: Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні

sort: votes


text:
What do aviation agencies do to make waypoints sequences more easy to remember to prevent navigation mistakes?
Inspired by this question.
What examples are there of waypoints strung together on airways or approaches which are funny or tell a story in order to help controllers and pilots reduce navigation mistakes?  I'm not looking for individual waypoint names, but connected waypoints.  For example:

WONZA JOLLY SWAGGY CAMBS BYLLA BONGS UNDER ACOOL EBARR TREES arriving from the West into Perth.
WEEEE WLLLL NEVVR FORGT SEP11 on the Freedom airway to Washington International.

@mins You found some in French?

@mins Nope - I'm guessing that names are never published in
航点, ウェイポイント, የመንገድ ነጥብን or similar non-latin languages ;)  Your examples are great, thanks. You should post these as answers.  If the community let's this live, it will be a great resource.

One small example in UK is a pair of waypoints on approaching Southampton from the south: NEDUL and THRED. NEDUL also happens to be over the Isle of Wight Needles.

"Please give us a list of jokes" is not a Stack Exchange question. I'm pretty sure we (collectively) have been through this before on meta.

For airport codes, Ottawa to Zahedan: YOWZAH

@DavidRicherby I agree and don't expect it to live but, worth a try ;)  I agree with the whole SE ethos but sometimes, just sometimes.  I've had the most fun reading these I've ever had on this stack.

@mins Changing the title doesn't help. If you want to ask that question as a separate question, go for it. But the current title is not descriptive of the question, which remains as "Please give us a list of jokes, albeit ones that might have a useful purpose beyond being jokes."

@mins Ah, I see in the last edit someone threw in the "to prevent navigation mistakes" line.  The original question and all of the answers are not about preventing navigation mistakes; they're about silly names.

Someone just close the question already.  It only needs one more vote.

Australia

Brisbane / Melbourne FIRs boundary
PUDYA SWEED LIPPS ALIDL CLOZA TOUDA PHONE
(Put your sweet lips a little closer to the phone, Jim Reeves)
Brisbane RWY19 STARs
LEAKY BOATS SINNK and
DRAIN PLUGG SINNK.
BLAKA MOOVI by the South.
Gold Coast (YBCG) SID 14/32
LUVLY MEETA MAIDS
(Lovely meter maids)

USA

Frederick, Maryland (KFDK) RNAV (GPS) RWY 5
PHILB DEFND GEEAY
(Phil Boyer, AOPA president, defends GA)
Kansas City, Missouri (KMCI) ILS/LOC RWY 1R
SPICY BARBQ TERKY SMOKE RIBBS HOTBI
Lebanon, New Hampshire (KLEB) ILS/LOC RWY 18
HAMMM HAANK BURGR FRYYS
Nashville, Tennessee (KBNA) ILS/LOC RWY 2C
LRETA JCKSN GRRTH
(Loretta Lynn, Alan Jackson and Garth Brooks)
Orlando, Florida COSTR THREE ARRIVAL
From LA BELLE Tacan: DOWNN MOANS BIGGR
From BOXKR ANDRO SETME
(I'm quite sure I missed some other)
Palm Beach, Florida (KPBI) Ivanka One Departure
The various departure paths include
UFIRD DONLD TRMMP IVNKA
(The FAA scrapped this procedure and some of the associated waypoint names in 2015.)
CRYER UTLEY FINNS PYRUT AHABB
(Captain Ahab is a fictional character in Herman Melville's Moby-Dick; Jimmy Buffett song: A Pirate Looks at Forty; Jimmy Buffett song: Fins; Michael Utley: musician; Jon Cryer(?): actor)
Portsmouth, New Hampshire (KPSM) RNAV (GPS) RWY 16
ITAWT ITAWA PUDYE TTATT - IDEED
(I thought I saw a pussy cat - I did!)
Salt Lake City, Utah (KSLC) RNAV (GPS) RWY 34L
HOAMR MARRJ BAURT LIEZA
(Simpsons characters)

Community wiki.

Also DRAIN GUTTA DEBAY (down the drain, into the gutter, and out to the bay), VERRY TRIKI, DENIS LILEE (Australian cricketer Dennis Lillee), at Brisbane.

Not to be outdone by their barbeque rival, KMEM has the BRBBQ arrival containing WHOLL HOOGG and BRBBQ SAUCC. But being from KC I must say the truth is on another arrival: BARFF!

As a note, try to upload plates & such to the Stack Exchange imgur (as images) so the links don't go dead. In particular for US procedures any links to charts or plates on faa.gov WILL break when the relevant document expires (they're removed to prevent people from downloading and using obsolete plates).

"Lovely meter-maids", not "meet maids".

I found DAVES STOOL off Massachusetts.

@voretaq7 -- good point. Airnav has a redirector that can be used to get a link that always fetches the current plate, though -- can we piggyback on that?

@UnrecognizedFallingObject That's better than the FAA's plate repository, but if a procedure is cancelled I think they stop serving it (for obvious reasons)

@voretaq7 -- probably true :)

And one of the IAFs for the Portsmouth RNAV (GPS) 16: SATAN.

I thought this was pretty creative.

"Follow the yellow brick road" found on GPS 1R approach into Wichita, Kansas.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
ATC application to listen in to current flight?
I was wondering if there is some sort of app or website that allows people (well, me as a passenger) to listen in to the ATC of my current flight? (Assuming the flight has passenger wifi).
If this is possible, could this increase the safety of flights?
More passengers and therefore, more ears, on ATC could have potentially saved multiple airliners where major incidents occurred due to pilots mishearing / misunderstanding ATC either due to broken signals, language barriers or other distractions. Please note, this isn't my primary reason for wanting this. I am just interested in listening for entertainment purposes.

@ymb1 I have edited the question to relate to safety

Maybe we could have something like Twitch Plays Pokemon where passengers vote on what the next control input will be based on what they think they heard over the radio.

You claim about passengers "saving" airliners by listening to ATC seems highly implausible. Do you have sources to back it up? But there is a possible reference: for years United let passengers listen to ATC audio on channel 9 (I don't know if they still do or not). If you can find a) an example of a passenger listening to channel 9 who then "saved" an aircraft, and/or b) statistical evidence that United flights were safer in general due to channel 9 (i.e. after controlling for all other factors) then you might have an interesting point. But I'm very sceptical that you would find anything.

Not only is it highly implausible that a passenger listening to live ATC would save a flight, but any possible benefit would be overwhelmed by the massive number of passengers raising false alarms due to misunderstandings.

@Pondlife What about the Majorca disaster where the pilot didn't hear that the runway was not clear? Perhaps if someone else had been listening... I will try to find some actual evidence to present though.

@Cloud You're imagining a scenario where an untrained passenger hears, understands, interprets and correctly assesses the implications of a radio call when two professionals with much more information and situational awareness did not. And then, the passenger has to convince the cabin crew that they should interrupt the flight crew seconds before takeoff to tell them that the guy in 21C thinks that the crew misheard an ATC call. Even for another pilot, that would be difficult. I just don't see it happening outside of a movie.

@Pondlife I understand. Thankyou for the explanation... maybe I will never save an airliner after all...

"Maybe"??  It is absolutely certain that you will never save an airliner.

@abelenky How can anything be said to be 'absolutely certain'?...

https://www.liveatc.net/.  It's real time ATC, although there might be a delay of a second or two in what you hear.
For fun, great, but if you're thinking that a passenger could listen in and hear something and run up to the flight deck to correct some misinterpretation, no.

@John K - Why not? What if they are speaking in your native tongue, while the pilot is not?

How many passengers know the situation and lingo? The pilots have a better situational overview of both the plane and traffic.

@Cloud For every "useful" input from a passenger, there would be a few hundred "huh? What was that? Is that bad?" inputs, and the distraction of having to deal with those would be awful. United has 'channel 9' on their IFE so you can listen, but they do NOT accept passenger inputs in the manner you suggest.

@RalphJ: Does United still have Ch.9?  I thought they ended that soon after 9/11.  I used to love listening to it, however.

@abelenky Some flights still have it, although it is entirely up to the pilots whether or not it is on and working.

LiveATC works great in the US or countries with liberal broadcasting laws, but there are countries (like some in Europe) that do not allow these types of rebroadcasting, so your mileage with LiveATC may vary depending on what country you are listening to. Also note that there is a bit of a delay, so by the time a passenger heard it, the pilot has probably already responded to it.

Passengers, on US carriers anyway, would not have access to the pilots. The best they could do is notify the steward/stewardess and one of them could relay the info to the pilot or first officer.
I am a small plane pilot, and also enjoy listening to the active frequency when it is available.


text:
What can I do if my aircraft type changes last minute?
I have a flight scheduled for June with a popular, European commercial budget-operator on a 737. I'm sure everyone knows about the groundings of the MAX. However, I'm concerned that the MAX may be returning to service around the time I'm scheduled to fly.
I absolutely would not fly on one of these types, yes Boeing have completed 96 test flights and yes, they guarantee a thorough 'safety update' to the software.. but it's too little, too late for me.
Can I get a refund/alternative flight if my aircraft type changes last minute?
I know initially it seems this might be better suited on the travel SE, but I don't think people there will know much about specific type groundings, and even if they did, it's unlikely they will have access to information required to answer this question. Basically, I was hoping someone working in the commercial space would have an answer, and most of those people are on this site.

This is a question about the Passenger side of aviation - which is better suited to Travel.se

@Jamiec I did consider that, I will update the question to include my reasoning for posting it here. Please remove your downvote.

Cloud, this question is about your transportation agreement with the airline, their  general terms and conditions, and any other legal obligations they might have. It is not about aviation (as defined for this SE).

I don't see how the update makes it suited for this SE instead of [travel.se]

Nothing besides cancelling or rebooking (while hoping the new flight will have a different type assigned to it).
Unless your transport contract with the airline goes into inordinate detail about the service to be rendered you won't be able to dictate what type of aircraft should the used for the trip.

I appreciate the sentiment of the OP. A close relative of mine intentionally books quads for transoceanic flights and would be very much not amused if a twin was subbed in. Still, nothing one can do - airline‘s choice. Aircraft type is generally not a guaranteed booking option.

I guess he´s not a fan of ETOPS: Engines Turn or Passengers Swim :)

Exactly. I pointed out that the risk of experiencing an engine failure increases with number of engines, but they still insisted they didn’t like the prospect of flying three hours on one engine over stormy water of four degrees...

@CptReynolds Thanks Cpt. Although, I feel my worry is a bit more grounded... the MAX (and the NEOs for that matter) have proven themselves unsafe on multiple occasions recently. Obviously this is not the case for general twin types.


text:
Do aerobatic rolls exert high G-forces on an airframe?
In an accident where a flight instructor performed multiple aerobatic manoeuvres in an uncertified aircraft, the load on the airframe caused it to break apart.
I know in this accident the instructor was performing extreme techniques that involved maximum elevator inputs as well as rolling, so my question is - if you simply perform a full 360 degree aileron  roll to the left or right, how much G-force does that exert on the airframe?
I ask, because you could theoretically perform this in any light aircraft, so I wonder what prevents so many capable machines (i.e. most ultralights) from being aerobatic certified.

Do you mean an Aileron roll or a Barrel roll because the answer will be very different WRT forces exerted (I know your title said Barrel, but then your body just says "360 degress roll").

The answer is: It depends completely on how many Gs you pull. And that has little to do with the geometry of the maneuver itself. You can do a very low G barrell roll, (done slowly and carefully), and you can do a high G snap roll, that can overstress the airframe. The reason that barrell rolls are of concern is that unless they are done carefully, during the nose low descending portion of the maneuver, it is easy to allow the pitch attitude to get too low, and airspeed too high, where you are more likely to overstress the airframe pulling out of the dive.

@Jamiec After reading this: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/26173/what-is-the-difference-between-a-barrel-roll-and-an-aileron-roll?rq=1 I mean aileron

Obligatory low-g roll video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9pvG_ZSnCc

The other obligatory roll video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_khhzuFlE

simply perform a 360 degree roll

It's not so simple.  In the process of rolling the aircraft from wings level 360 degrees to wings level with only aileron inputs a lot of lift is lost, resulting in the aircraft tending to dive.
Once the aircraft exceeds its manuvering speed, pulling out of the dive too aggressively can cause structural failure of the aircraft.
To give go some idea of how much trouble you're in if you wind up too fast in a 20 degree dive:  Full thrust of a Cessna 172 at 100 knots, maybe 400 lbs.  Gravitational thrusting force:  sine 20 degrees × 2400 lbs = around 800 lbs.  You pull the throttle back but it's too late, the plane is accelerating, making it even harder to pull out of the dive.
2 choices: break the plane or hit terrain.  Simply too dangerous.
The diving issue is exacerbated by forward set weight with tail downtrim, which increases the tendency to nose down while sinking.  While a pure longitudinal roll puts very little G stress on the airframe or pilot, rudder and elevator inputs must be added to help keep the nose from dropping.  A more rearward CG placement also lessens the tendency to dive by reducing the longitudinal stability of the aircraft.
Proper pilot training and knowledge of the aircraft "safe" envelope is essential to safely performing even slow rolls.

Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.

If executed PROPERLY, both an aileron roll and a barrel roll should each be a 1g maneuver throughout.  The key there is to do it properly throughout.  Get an entry attitude wrong, apply elevator pressure incorrectly or end up in a dive attitude close to the ground and it’s easy to rush and load the airplane up, combining bending and torsional loads on the airframe at dangerous levels.
A snap roll, or a flick roll, is a different kind of animal.  This maneuver requires an abrupt pull up combined with a hard yaw input, in order to stall one of the wings.  Do this kind of a maneuver in an airplane not approved for them, combined with speeds well above Va, and you’re at a high risk of structural damage or failure.
As the narrator in the video points out, he had exceeded the aircraft maneuvering speed Va in the last maneuver. Combine that with a hard pull, and you’re very easily could exceed the structural load limitations of the airplane.
It’s just another case of an idiot flight instructor who thought he knew more than he did and ventured out into dangerous waters.  He became another tragic case of people learning the hard way why you don’t break the law and regulations.  The laws of physics caught up with him faster than the FAA could and three people lost their lives as a result.

That’s a slow roll, not a barrel roll or aileron roll.  They’re flown differently.

See https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/47455/can-a-barrel-roll-really-be-executed-at-a-constant-1g

@Romeo, You can't do a Barrell roll without exceeding 1G. The last quarter of the maneuver is rolling out of 90 degrees of bank and raising the nose from a nose low attitude, (a dive), back to wings level flight. The plane will not pull out of the dive unless you put more than 1 G on it.

"If executed PROPERLY, both an aileron roll and a barrel roll should each be a 1g maneuver throughout." -- that can't be true.  If so, they would each follow the same trajectory.  The truth is, people's definitions of these rolls vary widely.  Esp for barrel roll but also for aileron roll.  (E.g., is heading constant?  Or not?  Is ball centered?  Or not?)  But I don't believe that any semblance of either one could be executed holding exactly 1 G.  Maybe after an initial pullup and excluding a final pullout, it might be possible, depending on the exact definition at play.

Not necessarily true. For instance, inverted at 1G, the airplane is not tracking the same vector as it was in level flight at one G.

@Romeo, yes, you are correct, Any G applied will cause the aircraft flight path to deviate from the purely ballistic (zero-G) flight path, in the direction or orientation of the lift vector, (determined by the bank angle). The higher the G load, the greater the deviation.

An Extra 300 has a wingspan of 7.39 m and a maximum roll rate of 400 degrees per second.  The centripetal acceleration is $r\omega^2$.  I do not know exactly where the axis of rotation is, but the maximum centripetal acceleration is around $3.7\times7^2=181$ m/s$^2$ or around 18 g near the wing tips.  There would also be vertical acceleration.
Yes, in an aerobatic airplane at maximum roll rate, the wing tips of the airplane experience very high acceleration.  The parts near the axis of rotation, which is most of the parts, experience less acceleration.
As the other answers mention, any maneuver can break a plane if you do it very badly.  An aerobatic wing is very strong against tension.

Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.


text:
Terrain rising, controller not giving climb clearance... what to do?
Over the weekend, I asked for a zone transit for some class D airspace surrounding two large airports.
This is because the Minimum Safe Altitude for the area is 3,200ft and the airspace started initially at 4,000 feet, descending to 3,000 and then to 2,000 as I got closer to my destination.
Anyway initially they said the usual "call you back" and then 3 miles out asked me to transit below controlled airspace (stay below 4,000ft). Whilst this was ok initially, as I got closer to my destination, the terrain was rising (remember that MSA), whilst the airspace was closing in above me, meaning I had to continue to descend.
When I was down to 3,400, I asked for permission to climb (into the airspace), which was denied.
I then had no choice, I had to descend below the MSA to stay clear of the airspace.
What would the appropriate course of action be in this situation?
If it helps, I have included a diagram below. Green line was the approx course and I have highlighted the airspace altitudes in red.

I don't feel that this is authoritative enough to be an answer, but I guess the only 'official' appropriate course of action is to turn back.  If you can't transit at a 'safe' altitude, then don't.  But in comes the subjectivity - is what is 'unsafe' for one aircraft and pilot unsafe for all?  The rules say so, but each plane has a different glide ratio and landing length requirement.  You may well find that you can fly safely below MSA and still have plenty of emergency landing opportunities.  I guess you just have to make the judgement of what is safe for you.

A couple of points. 1) It's not clear why you think you had to descend. Do you mean the rising terrain meant you had less height AGL (ie/ you remained at the same altitude, but the ground was rising)? 2) To really give you a specific answer on the correct course of action, we would probably need specific detail of location/direction/altitude. Otherwise the best you'll get is a generic answer( ie/ turn round!).

Hi @Jamiec yes, the terrain was rising, whilst the airspace above was getting lower

So where was the descent?! (in reference to meaning I had to continue to descend.)

@Jamiec My initial altitude was around 3,900 when the airspace was at 4,000, I had to descend as the airspace became 3,500 and then later on 2,000 (see EGFF chart for a better visualisation!) :)

@Jamiec added a pic

Pic is useful, but now begs the question why you chose a routing under Cardiff CTA, instead of staying north of it.

@Jamiec efficiency and radio practice :)

Why was MSA 3200? I see towers and stuff on the map that are no more than max ~1300 ft MSL, surely the ground is not at 2200 MSL?

@Jpe61 I don't know... that's what's on the chart, yes there is high terrain around that area, mountains, etc.

MSA is a bad term to use. Minimum sector altitude is a regulatory thing for IFR flight, Minimum safe altitude is an advisory thing.... but what is shown on VFR charts is Maximum Elevation Figure.

I'm sorry to say, this was an absolute lack of prior planning. I don't mean this in an insulting way, far from it, but you must not let the aircraft get ahead of you. In this case, thinking you had nowhere to go but down, you only really should have taken one course of action and that was a 180 turn.

The sector you were in, at the lower left of your image actually has a maximum elevation figure of 2,200 MSL. The sector just north of it is 3,300 MSL, but remember this is a huge sector, covering the lower half of the welsh mountains, the nearest peak to you was roughly 13 NM north at 1,969.  There is another peak at 2,907 but that was more like 20+ nm away. There was also a antanae at 1,416 at about your 1 o'clock position.
Proper planning, would have told you that, although below the advised "maximum elevation" for the sector, you were in no danger continuing your (presumed) route - assuming you were going to remain well clear of that antanae. Your planned route should have avoided it.
You were also (roughly) on the extended centreline of Cardiff international airport, expecting to climb there was never going to happen. You should have planned to stay below any controlled airspace at that location during pre-flight planning.
Plan better before you leave the ground.

I highly suggest you read the CAA safety sense leaflet on VFR flight. There's some gold in there:

When reviewing the route, you should look for
airspace hazards, high ground and obstacles.
Take account of the hazards in your planning, for
example if the cloud base may be lower than
forecast, a route further away from high ground
will be preferable.
A formal ‘minimum safe’ altitude is not a legal
requirement for VFR flight, but you should
establish altitudes for the intended route or area
of operation, below which you will not continue
the flight. You should have alternatives planned
should the weather prove unsuitable to continue.
Note that the ‘Maximum Elevation Figures’
(MEF) on VFR charts are just the highest terrain
or obstruction thought to be present within the
specified area. The MEF does not include a
margin and is not a minimum safe altitude.

For what it's worth, if I had found myself in this position, I would have been tempted to make a beeline for the coast. Other than wind turbines, there's few obstacles. I have a clear coastline I can follow, and it would take me away from any airspace.

Thanks Jamie, appreciate the feedback and will read that CAA document today

MSA does not apply when flying VFR. You might still use it as a guideline, but the margins used when calculating MSA are extremely large, so you will often end up flying much higher than needed.
The minimum levels to be followed under VFR are as follows:

(f) Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the competent
authority, a VFR flight shall not be flown:

(1) over the congested areas of cities, towns or settlements or over an open-air assembly of
persons at a height less than 300 m (1 000 ft) above the highest obstacle within a radius
of 600 m from the aircraft;

(2) elsewhere than as specified in (1), at a height less than 150 m (500 ft) above the ground
or water, or 150 m (500 ft) above the highest obstacle within a radius of 150 m (500 ft)
from the aircraft.

(Source: SERA.5005, which is referenced in UK AIP ENR 1.2 section 1.3. With which you should be familiar when flying in the UK.)
Looking at a chart of that area, you could easily comply with these rules while staying below controlled airspace. And being VFR, you could easily verify this by looking out the window to confirm that you were nowhere near the ground.
So I have to agree with Jamiec that this situation could (should) have been prevented by better preflight planning.
However, to answer your question directly, the appropriate course of action if you encounter a situation where you are unable to continue forward safely is to turn around. If this, for some reason, is not possible, you have to make this clear to ATC. Again, this doesn't apply to this specific flight since you were nowhere near the terrain, but if you had been, explain this to ATC and request a climb to stay clear of terrain. If this is denied and you are unable to turn around (for example due to weather), that is an imminent threat to the safety of your flight. The correct course of action in such a situation is a mayday call, after which you will be given a climb immediately.
Consider ATC a resource you can use during a flight, not a limiting factor. If you had mentioned to ATC that you were worried about staying clear of the terrain, they would easily have been able to explain to you that there was nothing to worry about. Continuing to request climb without giving a reason gives the controller no clue why you are persisting, and thus very little chance for them to help you.

Final paragraph, 100%!!


text:
Is this a reasonable way of thinking about an auto-rotation?
Related to this question.
My instructor described an auto-rotation as:

Entry.  Lever down, stick back, pedal in.
Fly normally, with a little tweaking of RRPM to keep it in the green, until about 50 feet above the ground.
Perform a quick stop.
Perform an engine failure in the hover.

I can see the logic in this but, all of the autos that I have done have been far too busy to think about it like this and all the ones I've done to the ground have been run-ons so step 4 was not an option.  Without significant extra training and experience I would not even contemplate a zero-zero landing so in practice, I will probably never get to test the theory.
Is this a valid way of thinking about the manoeuvre?  I'm not suggesting that anyone does anything other than what they were taught, just thinking about how these four manoeuvres roll into one.

Don't forget step 0: look down.

@TylerDurden  In many lights, step 0 before step 1 will kill you ;)

What will kill you is autorotating into a high tension power line pylon.

@TylerDurden If you are in a position where auto entry will put you into the line, a Darwin Award is probably in order :)

The way I like to think about it is 1) power the rotor using airspeed, 2) use power in rotor to slow down before impact.

@casey Impact?  I've done lots of autos to the ground and never had an impact!

have to agree with @Simon: collective goes to the floor FIRST. you won't lose much altitude, but you will lose RPM, which will kill you much faster and more reliably than hitting wires. In reality, dropping the collective is so ingrained, and you're probably looking out the window anyway, that they get done simultaneously.

First off, auto-rotation is a general term for all helicopters and the process varies between different air-crafts and the cause of the auto-rotation. For example, in auto-rotation due to loss of tail rotor thrust you can (and should) descend with some collective power and reduce descent rate. Also, in such auto-rotation there is also a mandatory step 2.5 - cut the power. Otherwise, the craft will rotate out of control in the quick stop.
Also various helicopter types behave differently while auto-rotating such as bigger helicopters start flaring at least 125 feet above ground.
As for the steps described - I'll agree that they break down nicely the process into other familiar processes, even though obviously not entirely accurate. I think the main difference is that flaring from altitude in a 1500-3000 ft/second descend and approaching a quick stop usually with speed forward rather than downward - require significantly different flight technique and practice.

downvoted b/c autorotation is autorotation. if you have any power in, its not an auto.

@rbp if the engines deliver no torque and the blades are being driven by the air going through them, you are actually in autorotation. Sprite's answer is valid

And you won't land in a hover with larger helicopters at maximum weight. You will have some forward speed (unless you have wind in excess of 30-40 knots on the nose).
But that sequence sounds a bit basic, but not unreasonable.

downvoted b/c he never said he would "land in a hover". the flare is to use the kinetic energy of the copter's airspeed to arrest the descent of the heli, then to pull up on the collective to expend the kinetic energy in the turning blades to cushion landing.

@rbp: '4. Perform an engine failure in the hover'

"perform an engine failure in the hover" (Task VIII A "Power Failure at a Hover" in the PTS) is a completely separate skill from "land in a hover" (Task IV A "Hovering Maneuvers: Vertical Takeoff and Landing " in the PTS)

Dude, when you land from an autorotation, you land. Whether from a hover or not. The initial question mentioned performing an engine failure in the hover right after a quickstop.I wanted to clarify that it is highly unlikely that you can come to a hover first before landing from an autorotation. Especially for large helicopters at high all-up-mass. And yes there are(/were) helicopters that can(/could) hover shortly after an autorotation

That erroneous concept exactly demonstrates why your answer deserved a down vote

You seem to keep thinking I'm talking about a power-on landing in a hover

what you're talking about is not called a landing. its called a "hover auto"

The devil is in the details.  Flight configuration prior to engine failure is the first element.  The second major factor will be reaction time and entry.  The actual auto, assuming all went well with the initial entry is relatively benign.  The next key factor is what was required for you to make 'the spot'.  Did you maintain airspeed and RPM?  Did you flare too early, or too late?  No matter, almost all is forgivable if you at least maintained enough airspeed to stop a 1500-2000fpm rate of descent with a reduction in airspeed ("flare").  The final zen moment is timing in the flare.
At the final moments of the flare, you need as near zero ground speed as possible before settling your tail into terra firma with a nose high attitude.  You see...the flare eventually 'wears off' with the airspeed and the aircraft settles. The key here is to use that final rpm 'cushion' to get as near zero forward ground speed as possible while also cushioning ground contact and avoiding a tail strike.  Nose forward too much and you will slide on like an olympic speed skier.  If you are in a Costco parking lot and avoid the light stanchions, this might work for you.  Short of that, expect a roll or substantial collision. On the other hand, If one fails to nose forward enough, then a tail strike should be expected with a subsequent violent ... over end swap that will likely ruin your otherwise perfectly good auto.
As you can see, the entire procedure gets you to this final moment where it all counts.  Assuming you entered appropriately with a manageable flight profile (airspeed and altitude),  your next Come to Jesus moment will be when you A) made a survivable spot, and B) executed a well timed flare, pitch pull, and attitude that minimizes ground run while preventing a tail strike.  Other than that....nothin to it.

Those are exactly the 4 phases:

entry -- lower the collective to keep the RPMs up
auto-rotation flight -- keep the needle at the required RPM. 90% will give you a longer glide, but the horn will be blaring
flare -- use the kinetic energy in the airspeed to arrest the descent near the ground. 50 feet is pretty high. Watch some youtube videos of full-down autos in your type of copter to get a sense of the height
hover auto -- just above the ground, expend the energy in the rotating blades by pulling all the way up on the collective to cushion the landing. you will need a lot of pedal here too, otherwise you will yaw

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
What, if any, are the rules on ATC politeness?
There are plenty of recordings available of ATCs acting impolite, in the linked video, the pilot says he will file a report about the conduct of the ATC.
Would this actually result in any disciplinary action? What are the formal, contractual rules around tone, manners and general politeness when speaking to pilots?

Related and/or possible duplicate: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/31708/how-strictly-are-language-rules-adhered-to-between-pilot-and-atc?rq=1

@Jamiec It is related, but not a dup. I'm specifically interested in formal disciplinary procedures rather than general etiquette.

There are regulations with most authorities against use of profane language, so a controller using the F word would probably get a suspension or some other punishment depending on whether the use was intentional, or not (like letting it slip out it under stress).  Beyond that, rudeness is more of a "customer service" issue you might say and it will be up to ATC management and the agency's internal policies to decide how to discipline a controller who gets a lot of complaints.  I'm just adding as a comment because you probably want an ATC insider to provide the specific answer.

Well, Kennedy Steve still has his job.

Not an answer but I think most people listening to that clip will be on the side of Kennedy Steve, and not the Etihad guy who seemed to have trouble with English.

See also What is the “non-apologizing rule”?

Related

My reaction, as one who flew out of JFK the entire decade of the 1990s, is that the person who should be censured would be the Etihad pilot for introducing unnecessary audio traffic in a high work load situation. Were I his chief pilot and the incident were reported to me, I would point out to him that the proper way to complain is not on frequency but in a phone call to the controlling facility afterward. The Etihad pilot was not being professional. His complaining did not contribute to expediting aircraft movement; it was a distraction.

In a long-ago occurrence, a controller and friend of mine was working a mid-shift at my facility, when a VFR aircraft encountered IFR conditions. The controller was the "brusque" type, but was absolutely professional on the frequency, and handled the situation in a fine manner.
Trouble was, on the mids, we used handsets instead of headsets. With a handset, the mouthpiece is always on with the recorders. My friend was telling jokes and giving opinions, etc., which were laced with obscenities (none of which were about work, just general joking around).
It all went on the tape.
Management had wanted to give him a commendation for the save, but gave him a letter of reprimand, instead.


text:
Are there any stall warning apps available?
Recently I was flying a 500ft circuit, when in the downwind leg I felt a buffeting, when I looked at my ASI, to my horror, I was at stall speed.
I recovered without incident, (recover might be an exaggeration, I don't think the stall developed), but it got me wondering, is there any app available (or can you add to SkyDemon) a stall warning alarm? Obviously the tablet can't detect AoA, so it would just be based on your speed vs stall speed, which you would need to set.
If not, what other options are there? This is in a C42.
To clarify, the Ikarus C42 does not have a stall warning horn

Did I read that right? There's no stall warning horn in a C42?

@Jamiec Some aircraft use the aerodynamic buffet as the stall warning. See my answer for more info.

@1nf Yep, I am aware, perhaps mandela effect, but I was sure id heard a stall horn in a C42.

Hey @Jamiec no horn, or any other warning in a C42

Your tablet will not be able to gather your IAS without an interface to your aircraft's sensors. Your "speed" would be ground speed from the GPS receiver in your tablet, so any sort of winds would throw off your stall warning and make it useless. I don't think what you are looking for is possible without an avionics interface. To add to this as you correctly laid out in your question what really matters for determining a stall is AOA. Stalls can occur at any airspeed, so even if you had your IAS on your iPad it wouldn't be truly accurate.
23.207 declares that an audible or visual indication is not required anyway as long as the aircraft exhibits a "warning" 5 knots before the stall. In the C42's case I imagine this is the buffet, so that is the warning that you are about to develop a stall and provides the same functionality as a stall horn in another aircraft type. A stall alarm is not necessary.

There isn't a horn on a C42?

@CGCampbell In a quick video I watched I didn't hear one, and I'm not sure why Cloud would have this issue if it did have one.

+1, the buffet seemingly IS the warning. Pilot made a mistake, the aircraft alerted him to it, the pilot landed safely. The system worked as designed.

buffeting : "irregular oscillation of part of an aircraft, caused by turbulence." - how do you know if it's stalling or just hitting some turbulence?

@Mazura good question, and I think it's one worth asking as it's own question so more people can see it and answer. I don't have a good answer, I would say that in turbulence my guts feel it whereas buffeting is just affecting the aircraft. But I encourage you to ask it separately to get a better answer!

@CGCampbell nope!

Thanks for the answer, makes sense, Ground speed is not useful... can't imagine a way to make such an app without access to the pitot tube info either.


text:
What happened to the engines on takeoff here (loud popping sound then silence)
What is the cause of the sound shortly after rotation in this short video?
And does anyone know what flight this was and what happened? (i.e. incident report) as I can't find any news about a fatal RyanAir incident, but I can't see how they would have recovered at that altitude
If the video is fake, i.e. the audio is from another flight, then which flight is the audio from?

Ryanair have never had a fatal accident, which is why you can't find anything.

@GdD Engine failures are also investigated.

If the engines had both failed at that altitude the airplane would not have been able to make it back to the airport. Plus, when the engines die the airplane continues to climb. It's obviously fake.

The poster says that the video is fake, and that does not mean that the audio is real.

I’m voting to close this question because it asks for an explanation of a fake video. That's an unanswerable and unproductive distraction.

@RalphJ distraction from what exactly? I'm asking where the audio is from. That is certainly not unanswerable

The audio sounds very much like a compressor stall, followed by the engine rolling back, likely due to the pilot reducing power.
Compressor stalls can occur for a wide variety of reasons. Damage from a bird strike or other FOD ingestion, excessive turbulence in the intake air, malfunctioning variable stator vanes... the list goes on.
Even though the video is fake (as admitted by the uploader), there's no reason to assume that the audio came from a fatal crash. Planes do occasionally lose engines during takeoff, and it's rarely fatal, since commercial planes have to be able to fly with one engine out.
Unfortunately, because compressor stalls have such a wide variety of causes, without more information, it isn't possible to tell where the original audio came from.


text:
Can multiple helicopters be used to lift a heavy load?
If the load is heavier than a single helicopter could lift, how possible is to use multiple helicopters for this task?
I have only seen this in some movies. The biggest doubts are

If we attach two ropes to the single point of the load in a V shaped way, a side force will be created pulling the helicopters together into collision.
Even without this, the flight of the two machines probably needs to be very coordinated.

In movies like "Pacific Rim" a whole swarm of helicopters lift a heavy robot. How realistic are these visions?

Yes, this is possible, as demonstrated in this video from almost 2 years ago:
Video

Each helicopter probably does not weigh more than the woman being lifted.
The two helicopters are tilted such that the forces are in equilibrium with no collisions.
Both are coordinated as two pilots are flying these by Line-of-Sight.

These are remotely controlled drones, not helicopters. Still this probably shows that the V configuration is probably manageable. Seems that really long ropes were used, giving enough horizontal distance between drones to make collision avoidance actions manageable.

I beg to differ. "Drones" is not a correct label for a pair of vehicles that are being actively controlled by human operators. The vehicles have a minimal amount of feedback in the controls system, only to remain stable, not navigate. And by mechanical definition, these are helicopters: They use a fully actuated swash plate for collective pitch control and cyclic pitch and roll, there is nothing that separates these from full-scale helicopters in mechanical principle. There is no reason the same maneuver cannot be preformed with manned helicopters save it be pilot skill and courage.

@Steve: This still qualifies for "drone" category, or Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) if you prefer.

This video on YouTube apparently shows that it has been done at least once. A rigid beam was used to counter the forces that would draw the two helicopters together.
Screen grab:

I also found this fascinating report (.PDF link) from Piasecki (now part of Boeing Defense, Space & Security) that studied the feasibility of attaching two CH-53D helicopters to each other, including interconnected powerplants and flight controls!

This video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jENWKgMPY shows that it can go horribly wrong.

Aka: "Testing a blimp at Lakehurst – What could possibly go wrong?"

The Soviets tested this for very outsize cargo - spacecraft components.

The developers considered using a couple of Mil Mi-26 helicopters to "bundle" lift the Buran, but test flights with a mock-up showed how risky and impractical that was.

This site (cited in the quote above) goes into a little more detail:

The newly developed MI-26 helicopter of the weight-lifting capacity of 26 tons was offered for delivery by helicopter. According to this project, bulky cargoes of high mass (airframe and rocket bays) tied with cables had to be carried by 2 or 3 helicopters, and such ‘bundle’ had to move along the route, at the best fit height and flying speed. As the basis for such version the example of helicopters application for ‘crane’ operations was brought, but there was still no experience of flights ‘in bundles’.
Test flights with mock-up cargo having the configuration of a tank section of the rocket were carried out at LII. The tests revealed a complexity and risk of such kind of delivery. During one of the flights at a suddenly arisen weak turbulence of atmosphere, a ‘pendulous’ swing of cargo on the cables started which caused a disturbance of the helicopters flight stability, owing to what the crews were compelled to dump the cargo.

The natural way to lift something like this would seem to be seperate slings at the two ends, which would counteract the side force problem but at the cost of having the two helicopters very close. Three would complicate it even more!

I mean any twin rotor helo in terms of lifting force is essentially two helicopters joined, The Russians built the world’s largest helicopter, the Mil v12 with a fuselage wider than and as long as that of a 737, with twin rotors on outriggers which was closer to two separate helis being joined. I think these demonstrate that it is a plausible concept given rigidity and synchronicity.


text:
Why would engine fire cause loss of control?
I was wondering why engine fire would cause of loss of control or crash. There is loss of power and even drag. But could some expert please expand on the troubles of a engine fire?

In a single engine aircraft this is often because the fire/smoke moves into the cockpit and incapacitates the pilot. The result is a loss-of-control and crash. Even if it doesn't cause a LOC, a pilot wants out of a burning aircraft quickly, so they are trying to get on the ground now, which often results in a crash.

This question is fine, but please nobody link or refer it to recent events. As a reminder, we do not speculate on ongoing aircrash investigations.

In theory, if the fire reaches an hydraulic pump or line it could lead to controls deficiency

Getting shot with a missile will also result in a loss of control.

In general, an engine fire in a modern jet airliner should not cause a loss of control.
Even though engine fires are rare, pilots are highly trained in dealing with them. Once detected, pilots are able to cutoff the supply of fuel and hydraulic fluid to the engine, and then discharge fire extinguishing agents. Even if the fire was not extinguishable, it would most likely not damage the wing structure or controls since the heat and flames would be directly away from critical systems by the forward movement of the aircraft.
An "uncontained" catastrophic engine failure where parts of the engine penetrate the aircraft wing and fuselage could possibly cause major damage to critical systems. There have been some incidents of uncontained failures that resulted in a loss of control and fatalities.
Here is a list of Notable uncontained engine failure accidents
Three of these accidents resulted in a loss of control and fatalities. The most notable was United Airlines Flight 232 where the failure of the rear General Electric CF6-6 engine caused the loss of all hydraulics forcing the pilots to attempt a landing using differential thrust and resulted in 111 fatalities.

111 fatalities, but it's still considered that it was a heroic effort on the part of the pilots that saved the lives of the other 185 in a scenario that could have very easily been worse.

The term "loss of control" can mean anything from having no control what-so-ever, to having a very slight degradation that is easily managed if it is even noticed.
As the engine is the primary source of control for any powered aircraft its loss, through fire or other failure, is always significant, but exactly how significant depends on the particular circumstances involved which can range from tragic through mundane to heroic.


text:
Are there regulations or adverse effects regarding Bluetooth in the cockpit?
Are there any FAA regulations concerning wireless Bluetooth headsets in the cockpit of any aircraft? Moreover, I'm interested in finding out if the Bluetooth protocol (IEEE 802.15.1) will adversely affect any aircraft avionics in terms of radio interference or other Electromagnetic Interference (EMI). If anyone has any experience with this, thoughts and comments would be greatly appreciated.

I'm on the fence as to whether this question is too broad.

It probably should be two questions, though both are good ones

I do not think the question is too broad. Both I and my friend have not been able to find an answer to the question. I have seen commercial bluetooth aviation headsets for pilots that want to stream music while also talking to ATC (although I don't know how safe that really is). But I was hoping that there were some aviation professionals that had experience in this area that they could share.

You can also find some more info in this question: http://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/2141/69

Yeah I saw that question but I'm not really worried about not hearing auditory cues like ATC or engine noise so much as I am EMI. Thanks though.

Related, to the EMI part of the question, at least: http://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/11555/755
One would assume that at least a few production samples of FAA-approved headsets would have been tested for emissions, though that doesn't necessarily mean a stray (or damaged) one won't emit where it isn't supposed to. Also, I'd probably be more concerned about whatever music device it's paired to than the headset itself in regards to EMI. Also, the music feature is not for while communicating with ATC and I would assume the headsets will mute the music when the frequency is active.

There are multiple aviation headsets approved by the FAA that have built-in Bluetooth.
Based on that, I'm going to say that this has been tested and will not interfere with the aircraft avionics.  Radio/EMI testing is part of the testing that any device approved by the FAA for use in an airplane must go through.

You can also find "TSO'd headsets" with Bluetooth (the Bose A20 is one example) -- of course the applicable TSO (TSO-C139) only cares about the headphones & microphone :-)

That makes sense. Thanks for the info.


text:
Why is landing not usually a continuous descent?
I have noticed on commercial flights (Ryanair, Boeing 737 specifically), that during the last 20 - 30 minutes of the flight, the aircraft alternates between descending and ascending pitch.
Why is this? Why not just gradually descend?
Further info: The route flown was London, UK to Budapest, Hungary.

We can only guess without more specifics as to the route flown, and the airport being flown into.  You could look at the Approach Charts for the airport being landed at, see what is published for flight levels to be flown.  Farther out, ATC has control as to the levels flown.

@CrossRoads I have added the detail to the question

You'll need to wait for an answer from your side of the pond I'm afraid. I'm only familiar with US airspace.

"flights"? As in, you've been on several and they all do it? How can you tell whether the pitch is "descending" or "ascending", or maybe just flying level?

There's no such thing as "descending pitch" or "ascending pitch". The aircraft can be pitched nose high or nose low (or level), and this will have different effects depending on other flight parameters. Very late during the landing approach the aircraft will typically be pitched nose slightly high to spare the nose wheels, for example, and earlier during the approach it will typically be pitched nose high to reduce speed; this has nothing to do with whether it is "ascending" (climbing) or not.

@MichaelKjörling OK, well basically the nose was pointing up and down (alternating) for 30 mins or so and I could visibly see use ascending and descending from the window. Why?

@aCVn: "Descending pitch" or "ascending pitch" could be used to describe a change in the aircraft's pitch angle; "descending pitch" would presumably refer to the aircraft pitching down, and "ascending pitch" to the aircraft pitching up.

The plane wouldn't be ascending during the descend sequence. It instead follows a stair-step sequence. The times where the plane remained level may have felt like ascending even though it wasn't. It is very hard to judge that in the passenger cabin.
It is much easier for the pilot to have a sequence of descends to a specific altitude alternating with keeping altitude until the next marker. It also provides a timeline during which he can handle his checklist.
Doing a full continuous descend brings the danger of ending up too high and needing to re-intercept the glideslope from above. This needs more vertical speed and if something goes wrong can end up with the plane undershooting the runway in the worst case. Intercepting from below each time is much safer and makes that the airplane will never descend steeper than the glideslope and the horizontal sections allow for a margin to correct any minor mistakes.
It is also safer to change the configuration of the airplane (flaps/gear) while in level flight rather than during descend. Staying level for a bit also allows the plane to bleed off the airspeed gained during the descent.

The Step-down process is because of the shape of Class B airspace, which has a decreasing series of steps.  The airplane follows it by descending to a specific altitude, holding level for a time, then descending to the next lower altitude in a series of "stair-steps".  This is very easy to follow, but requires the engines to draw back to idle, spin up to cruising speed, and drop down to idle again for each descent/cruise/descent step.
With the FAA's NextGen program, there are new approaches that can let the plane glide down on a continuous path.   This is described here, saves fuel, has less noise, and is more comfortable for passengers.

I doubt London, UK to Bukarest, Hungary involves much FAA-controlled airspace, although it might possibly include class B airspace. (I'm mostly familiar with Sweden, which pretty much only uses class C and class G.)


text:
Brace position - does it really save lives?
There are some people say the brace position was invented so that passengers don't experience pain when they die in a crash. The brace is designed so that you die quicker (by breaking your neck).
One source: Here
Is that true? If not, how does it provide better protection during a crash?

It is more difficult to get hit by an object if your head is down.

The source you've linked is tagged as "conspiracy theory" and I believe it is for good reason. Please search/read other resources as well, seems statistical evidence tells otherwise.

There are a number of reasons the brace position is recommended.

(apologies if graphic) If, in an emergency landing there are a
number of jolts or a hard stop of the aircraft, think of kinetics -
if your head is thrown forward about a metre with your hips restrained by the belt, that's going to whack your head against something at high speed, and cause more force on your seatbelt, causing (possibly) internal injuries. If you are already in that position, you may find yourself moving maybe 10cm at most. A big difference.
If your head is below the top of the seat, then if the overhead
lockers should fall, then you wont be bashed on the head.
It does protect you also from loose flying objects which at that
speed become missiles.
Your head is below the window level in case of any shattering
windows.
every airline is different, so follow their guidelines as the
design of their seat and belt may differ to others.

#1 doesn't make any sense. You're going 200mph when you hit the ground regardless. It doesn't matter if you move 10cm or 10m before you hit whatever it is that stops you, the sudden stop is the same. You're still going from 200mph to 0mph in a short period of time.

I edited your first bullet to make physical sense, since both you and your frame of reference are traveling at the same speed.  The issue (as you point out) is that your head moves farther during a sudden stop if you are not braced/bent over, hence greater chance for grevious injury due to higher kinetic energy at impact.  Edit again if you want; to use your own words.

@NuclearWang #1 actually makes a lot of sense, but it might be clear to say "the brace position is to stop whiplash" of the passengers neck/spine. "When performed properly, the brace position reduces injury to the head, neck, and legs. It also helps prevent whiplash", from: https://www.theflightexpert.com/how-to-survive-a-plane-crash/

"Your head is below the window level" Are you sure? It doesn't look significant, if indeed the case at all (depends on type), to me. See e.g. https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/aircraft-cabin.html and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lufthansa_737_interior.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2009-08-13_Boing_737_800_Passagierbereich.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:15-07-12-Aeropuerto-MEX-RalfR-N3S_8913.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A380_-Main_Deck_Cabin(3776703539).jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A380_Economy_seats.jpg.

@NuclearWang The idea of #1 is if you are braced against the seat in front of you, your whole body slows down at the same rate as the seats. If you are sitting back, when the seat slows down, your head does not, this means be the time your head hits the seat in front of you, the difference in speed is much higher. This is why cars have shoulder belts.

I am not sure about #4. Commercial PAX windows aren't glass. They are laminated acrylic. They also aren't help in massively tight, so they'd more than likely liberate before they shattered in an accident. I've seen some that shattered in flight from pressure, though, and it wouldn't have been a hazard to anyone from a debris POV. Otherwise, the list looks right.

@NuclearWang: none of the safety measures pertain a full crash. They are useful is smaller, survivable, accidents.

The FAA has a study on it you can find here the study is worth reading completely but the important parts of the conclusion seem to be,

Current Brace Position
This position (head against the seat back,
  hands on top of the seat back) was evaluated for three common types of
  seat backs.

This position was only successful for locked-out type seat
  backs. For full break-over and energy absorbing type seat backs, the
  ATD’s arms pushed the seat back away, allowing the head to accelerate
  relative to the seat back, increasing the severity of the head impact.
  There was, however, no evidence that the ATD interaction with any of
  the seatback types resulted in hyper-extension of the shoulder joint.

The “Forward” and “Vertical” leg brace positions permitted the lower
  legs to flail forward and contact the seat in front. This contact
  produced femur bending and compression (below criteria limits), and
  tibia injury risk in some cases.

The “Aft” leg brace position reduced
  lower leg flailing and prevented femur contact with the front of the
  seat frame. This position resulted in low femur and tibia injury
  assessment values; however, it is only achievable for occupants whose
  lower legs are long enough for their feet to firmly touch the floor.
Alternate Brace Position
To reduce the detrimental interaction
  between the occupant’s arms and the seatback, the current position was
  modified by placing the hands down by the lower legs instead of on the
  seat back.

This “Alternate” position was successful in reducing head
  and neck injury risk for all of the seat back types evaluated.
Pike Position
This position is currently recommended when the seat
  in front is too far away to support the head, or there is no seat in
  front, as in a bulkhead row.

It was successful in reducing head and
  neck injury risk in the row-to-row scenario, as long as the struck
  seat back has a relatively soft local compliance at the point of
  impact. When seated behind a bulkhead, the effectiveness of the pike
  position was dependent on whether the head of the occupant struck the
  bulkhead. “Head-path-reducing features,” such as Y-belts, prevented
  head contact at the typical 35-in setback.

So the answer is really, it depends on the position as well as the seats in question. You find a full explanation of what the various seat types are on page 2 of the study.
Perhaps the most interesting note is that they call for a potential change in the current brace position:

...and the current positions recommended in AC 121-24B may need some
  adjustment to provide an equivalent level of safety for all passenger
  seat back types.

@Cloud the source is a handful of people that used what appears to be the scientific method and crash test dummies to actually test survivability. Your insinuation is that these human beings - many of which will have family or themselves on an airliner at some point- thought it was better to secretly find ways to kill passengers in a survivable crash than it was to help them survive. It would be silly if the plan hit hard but intact and everyone was dead. AND THEN none of them would ever tell anyone - including said family - about their secret agenda.

@Cloud "This is just one source" The source is the FAA who did actual crash testing. How can you dismiss this source like it is a random youtube video?


text:
Did these pilots break any regulations by hand-flying an A320 for most of the cruise?
A couple of days ago, I flew with a popular budget airline within Europe. The aircraft was an A320. It was also a brand new one (only in service since June 2018 and produces 15% less noise and fuel emissions than previous models, or so they told us).
Anyway, onto the question. During the flight, I asked a member of CC if I could meet the pilots after landing, they asked for me and the pilots agreed. They seemed happy to have a chat, I asked them how much hand-flying they had done on the 3 hour flight we had just completed (after reading on here the average for this type is 3 - 7 minutes per flight). The captain sheepishly grinned and pointed at the FO...I turned around and he was laughing. The captain then told me that since the weather was so nice, the FO, who was still fairly new, asked if he could take control. Turns out he ended up hand-flying most of the cruise!
The captain then assured me that pilots don't use passenger flights to 'practice' their skills however, and that it was actually permitted and encouraged by this airline.
I thoroughly enjoyed the 'insider' knowledge of that flight and didn't mind one bit whether the pilots chose to use auto-pilot or not, but my question is - was this actually permitted? I have read, on this site, that the A320 has specific instructions in the manual that pilots must engage auto-pilot after 10,000 ft until approach.

I suppose you don't want to divulge the actual flight you were on to protect the pilot, but you can check on flightradar24 or flightaware yourself how much time was actually spent level at cruise altitude. For short European flights this can be a matter of minutes. Most of the flight is then climbing or descending which means that the rationale for using the autopilot (namely, tight tolerances on altitude for separation) doesn't hold. I don't know about the regs though.

note that "instructions in the manual" != "regulations"

There is no mandate in the generic A320 manual to fly on autopilot above 10000ft. Individual airlines‘ manuals may add this restriction though.

@Sanchises Exactly, it's why I avoid mentioning the airline, though I'm sure it is pretty obvious. Anyway, the flight was 3 hours, so I think we probably spent at least 2 hours at cruise?

@Sanchises I just checked and we spent a little over an hour at 37,000

There could also be some exaggeration/variation in the phrase "most of the cruise".

Aren't pilots required to hand-fly a flight every so often to keep them from forgetting how to do it?

I think they were humouring you Cloud.  Hand flying a jet at level cruise speed is not fun.  It takes a lot of concentration and the novelty quickly wears off, and there is a high risk of getting busted for an altitude deviation due to a little bit of inattention. Even if you are able to find a sweet spot with the trim where it holds altitude perfectly with no stick pressure, making you think you can relax a bit, all it takes is a temperature change or running into a bit of mountain wave and airplane will climb or descend and if you are distracted.. and drift up or down a couple hundred feet... busted.  RVSM legalities aside, I can't believe even a bushy tailed FO would hand fly more than a few minutes in cruise.
Plus with AP on, just one pilot has to be monitoring the AP, and the other one can do paperwork, sleep, do handstands, play video games or whatever.  When hand flying, the pilot not flying has to be monitoring the pilot flying. For an entire hour plus?  No way.  Just too much work and risk to your livelihood.

I second this wholeheartedly.

But on the other hand, FO was still 'new'; and secondly, this was A320, which does 'trim perfectly'. So I presume most of the time it would still be 'hands off' flying.

Airplanes trim to a speed, not to a vertical level.  The 320 is no different.  This won't prevent an altitude deviation from something like wave or a temperature change that increases or decreases thrust.

I'm very tempted to post a link to the video of the conversation, but I would hate for such friendly and accommodating pilots to get into any trouble because of it. When you say 'busted'... do you mean that ATC would ask what is going on if they saw more than 200ft deviation? Or something more serious?

@Cloud are you saying that you filmed them? did you ask for their consent?

@Federico My friend who was with me did. We didn't ask, but they could see him stood their with camera / smartphone pointing and didn't object.

@Cloud That's even more evidence that what they did wasn't against any regulations. No person would willingly give away information that could end their career while knowingly being filmed... especially in just a short conversation with a passenger.

Really nice to know. Good answer!

@john k the Airbus doesn't trim for speed at all, it trims for attitude, ie the relation between the nose and the horizon.

@PilotDan So if you pull the thrust to idle without touching trim, it holds the existing attitude and slows down?   That is very odd behaviour to program into a FBW system. The C-Series/A220 has a state of the art FBW, but it still trims to a speed.  There is even a trim speed bug on the speed tape to make it easy to set the trim speed you want without having to blip and blip to find the sweet spot when you are on-speed.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion that" Hand flying a jet at level cruise speed is not fun." I agree that "It takes a lot of concentration", but for me "novelty quickly wears off" was not at all true. These things are, of course, a matter of opinion, and I admit I was an outlier among the pilot population of the carriers I flew for.

@JohnK, the thing with A320 is that it auto-trims for wing loading. If you pull thrust to idle, it will indeed maintain flight path—which means altitude if it was flying level—and pitch up as it slows down. It will descend slightly as the system has some response delay, but much less than types with manual trim.

@JanHudec it sounds like you are describing ALT hold mode with A/P on.  If A/P is off, and you go to idle and just sit and watch it, what happens?  It pitches up to maintain altitude or attitude until it slows to stall?  It pitches over at some point?  Autothrottles intervene?

@JohnK, no, I am describing Normal Flight Law. Nothing to do with A/P, always on. With A/P off if you go idle and just sit an watch it, it will start pitching up to maintain straight flight path, descending a bit due to the lag in control response, until it hits the 12.8° AoA, at which point it will start pitching down to maintain that 12.8° AoA by pitch. At this point, nothing will touch the engine power, but if you pulled on the stick and commanded more than 14° AoA, the engines would accelerate to TO/GA and stay there until you moved the thrust levers to TO/GA and then back.

Ok thanks.  I have read in the past that a lot of pilots were unhappy with the Airbus FBW model, and that Boeing's FBW model is a little more "pilot centric" and mimics natural aircraft behaviour a little more.  I was told once that the C Series/A220 control law kind of splits the difference.

Since the flight was in Europe and you are specifically referring to the cruise flight, it is very likely that the flight was operated in Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (RVSM) airspace. All airspace in Europe between FL290 and FL410 is RVSM airspace.
To be approved to fly in RVSM airspace there are several regulations. Some of them are regulations related to the aircraft equipment, others are related to maintenance or the way to aircraft is operated.
The equipment requirements state that in RVSM airspace, the aircraft's must have an automatic altitude control system; (see SPA.RVSM.110PDF). But this doesn't tell us that the automatic control system must be used; for that we need to look at the operator approval.
The operator approval is not a public document; it is tailored specifically to the situation of the operator. However, there are Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) defined for special approvals that give the guidance or boilerplate text for RVSM approvals.
The European Aviation Safety Authority has published these AMCPDF for all specific approvals. The RVSM section starts on page 24 of the document.
Under AMC2 SPA.RVSM.105 RVSM operational approval:

OPERATING PROCEDURES
...
d. In-flight procedures

The following practices should be incorporated into flight crew training and procedures:

...
(iv)  When changing levels, the aircraft should not be allowed to overshoot or undershoot the cleared flight level by more than 45 m (150 ft). If installed, the level off should be accomplished using the altitude capture feature of the automatic altitude-control system.
(v) An automatic altitude-control system should be operative and engaged during level cruise, except when circumstances such as the need to re-trim the aircraft or turbulence require disengagement. In any event, adherence to cruise altitude should be done by reference to one of the two primary altimeters. Following loss of the automatic height-keeping function, any consequential restrictions will need to be observed.
(vi) Ensure that the altitude-alerting system is operative.

Therefore you can conclude that if the cruise flight was fully hand flown, and within RVSM airspace (between FL290 and FL 410), it was in violation of the Operator RVSM Approval, and therefor in violation of the regulations.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Thanks. „Should be operative and engaged“, is not strict, right? Should isn’t a shall or must. PS: Both answers are enlightening :)

All that this answer boils down to is, if the crew's statement was correct about hand flying, then they were probably at or below FL 280.  This answer really doesn't address the stated question; it just explains a particular parameter that would have to be met.


text:
LAPL vs PPL - Which is more suitable?
I would really like some help on making the decision as to which license is more suitable for my situation. From reading various forums online, others have had the same questions, but I couldn't find a concrete answer anywhere.
My situation:

No previous flying experience
Would like a license so that I can privately rent on a very recreational basis (I expect to average an hour or two per month after obtaining either license, largely due to cost - the local airport will hire out a 172 for £140 per tacto hour (including fuel and VAT), which equates to around £120 per flying hour for typical usage). Taking friends along for the ride would of course, be ideal.
Desire to keep cost to a minimum - I would like to keep the cost of the training, from zero to license to under 8k (pounds/euros) if possible. This includes training materials, lessons, test/exam fees and landing fees. I believe this is possible, if I manage to stick to the lower end of the average number of hours.
Local school offers full LAPL course (providing the minimum 30 hours) for £5290.
Local school offers full PPL course (providing the minimum 45 hours) for £7450.
Both prices are based on learning in a Cessna 150.
The weather in Uk and part of France I move to is not always great. There is often a lot of cloud, rain and wind.

So based on all of the above, which license would you recommend? The LAPL is cheaper, requires less hours (local school says 30) and is more attainable. It can also be upgraded to a PPL at a later date for instrument / night rating. However, due to the weather, will I get to fly as much with the tighter restrictions, if not, maybe it's better to just fork out the extra time and money and go straight for the PPL?
Apologies for the long winded question, I wanted to provide as much info as possible so that I can get the best answer possible as I am very conflicted at the moment but want to make a start. I hope that the answer isn't 'neither'. Which is what I'm worries about, since I don't want to be spending all of my disposable income on flying, I can't very well go out every week.
Location information: The training will take place in the UK, although I will be moving to France shortly after obtaining either license.

Whichever you chose DO NOT HAND OVER A WEDGE OF CASH. Pay as you go. Flight schools go out of business regularly and you will lose it all.

@Jamiec Ok, to be honest I didn't think of that. This school has been operating since 1996 and they do offer a saving of about 500 for paying upfront. Does your advice still stand?

If you're happy sticking to Europe, then it sounds like the LAPL would be sufficient for you. However, personally, I've always queried if it works out much cheaper to do the LAPL - there's a huge amount of crossover between the two and on top of that you need to do 10 hrs post license before you can carry passengers. I opted for the full PPL and I must say it's nice to have the option to take that worldwide and to be able to add whatever ratings I desire. Agree with @Jamiec, though, never pay up front

Yes, absolutely. The advice on every GA group I belong says dont do it.

@Dan Can that 10 hours be solo? Thanks for the info.

@Cloud It can, yes. But assuming you can do both courses within the minimum times, you're effectively saving 5hrs of flying time by doing the LAPL - the chances are it would take you somewhere around the same for both.

@Dan Ok thanks. So if I do the training in a 150, can I then fly a 172? If that should be posted as a question, let me know.

This is the exact same dilemma I had when I started training 2 years ago. I started off doing the LAPL but switched to the PPL at around 17 hours (up until about 20 hours the training for both is exactly the same, at that point they start to diverge slightly). I switched because I realised I was never going to get the licence in the minimum hours (I'm not sure if many people do?) so that meant I would be paying the same amount as I would for a PPL but for a licence with more restrictions. And on a budget the 10 hours after getting the licence will take 5/6 months.

Do you mean NAPL or LAPL? There's no such thing as NAPL, there's NPPL, please edit for clarity.

@GdD LAPL. Apologies and done.

"an hour or two per month" is right near the legal minimum for keeping your license without recurring proficiency checks (PCs). Consider whether you'll be able to maintain sufficient proficiency with such low hours.

@MichaelKjörling I thought the minimum was 12 hours every 24 months?

@Cloud I'm pretty sure the limit is 12 hours per year to avoid the recurring checkride, but I don't have access to my reference works right now so can't double-check. But really, half an hour (or even an hour) a month nets you only a few turns in the traffic pattern around a small airport in non-congested, non-controlled airspace. Don't forget that you'll readily be burning through 5-10 minutes before beginning the takeoff roll, and a few minutes after the landing, on things like pre-flight checks that must be done with the engine running, on aircraft configuration and taxiing.

I also note that you state that you will be training in the UK, then moving to France after getting the license. This feels like beating a dead horse, but consider the potential impact of Brexit on your plans, especially if you go for a LAPL. Will EU (French) authorities accept a UK LAPL post-Brexit? Maybe, but potentially not. You'll still have your experience and knowledge, so in theory getting a EU LAPL having a UK LAPL, even if the EU doesn't accept the UK LAPL, should be easier than getting a LAPL from scratch; but it will still come at a cost both in terms of time and money.

It would probably be a good idea to define the term LAPL for its first use. Being from the U.S., I had never heard of this before, as we have no such license (we do have recreational and sport licenses for similar reasons, but the "light aircraft pilot license" seems to be unique to Europe.)

There are some very civilised microlights out there such as these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabiru_J430 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_Design_CT  They are cheaper to run (and hire).  You can get a Microlight NPPL in 25 hours,though it will probably take a fair bit longer.  Details at www.bmaa.org

An LAPL allows you to act as PiC, carrying passengers, but only in the type and variant you pass your test on.

A LAPL for aeroplanes will allow you to act as pilot in command (PIC) on two classes of aircraft: either a single-engine piston aeroplane (land) or touring motor glider (TMG) with a maximum take-off mass of 2000 kg or less, carrying a maximum of 3 passengers, with no more than 4 persons on board.
source

Whereas a PPL you will be able to fly all variants of SEP (source), with the exception that for things like taildraggers, and more complex aircraft (such as those with retractable undercarrige)  you will need extra training and endorsement.
The only other major difference is the day you pass your receive your PPL license, assuming you have conducted 3 take offs and landings in the prior 90 days, you will be able to take passengers. An LAPL requires you to complete 10 hours solo once receiving your LAPL license before taking passengers.

So if I train for my LAPL in a 150, can I then fly a 172?

@Cloud I'm not 100% sure. From reading that CAA webpage I don't think so. Its not the same variant as you passed your skills test on (Assuming a 150).

The LAPL does allow you to fly a Cessna 172 as it's maximum take-off weight is less than 2000kg, during the day, in visual meteorological conditions. It does not allow you to add any extras on, you cannot possibly fly at night or in instrument conditions, ever. With the PPL you can get a night rating or get an instrument rating for flight in cloud. Not that with the PPL you cannot fly in IMC, so if you at some point want to fly in IMC then the LAPL is not a good choice.
The thing is if you want at some point to convert a LAPL to a PPL you just need a few hours of extra training and pass the written tests and checkride. So you could start with a LAPL and upgrade later if money is an issue. If it isn't then I'd go for the PPL, it's much more interesting being able to fly at night, especially in France where there's many more airfields with lights.

I think with the PPL you will also be allowed to fly in airspace where a radio would be required, which really opens up the airspace you can fly in.  Check into that aspect as well.

@CrossRoads In Sweden, even UL and TMG are allowed to fly in controlled airspace (or more accurately, airspace with a requirement for two-way radio communications), given compliance with that requirement. I'm pretty sure also non-motorized gliders are, subject to the same requirement for two-way radio communications. What I can say with almost 100% certainty is that in Sweden, the aviation radiotelephony privilege is legally separate from the pilot's license. I imagine the UK and France are both similar in this regard.

You can add a night rating to the LAPL and as per @MichaelKjörling, you will do an RT license during your LAPL and fly in controlled airspace the same as a PPL could.

I don't think there's any limitations on that with the LAPL @CrossRoads.

Yes, it's cheaper and the course is shorter, but the syllabus for the LAPL includes a minimum of 30 hours of flight training. It should be stressed that this is a minimum figure and most students will take many more hours to complete the training. You should budget for at least another ten hours on top of this figure.
How long it will actually take for either licene will depend on several factors, not least of which is the continuity of training. Fly more often and you'll probably end up completing the course in nearer the minimum number of hours.
As for the weather, you're going to be learning the same subjects and procedures as you would for the full PPL, so you'll still be flying in VMC under VRF just like PPL holders do.  So yes, you can fly as much as the weather allows.  If you decide you want to become instrument rated then you can upgrade to a PPL later and add an instrument rating.  By then you'll have gained some experience so the process will be easier that going through it all in one burst of training.
So, you can complete the LAPL and spend the money you've saved on building experiece as PIC until you're ready for the next stage.
I note that the questions and answers here are from 2018 so be sure to check the CAA website for any changes to the requirements. My post about LAPL vs PPL contains a lot more information and I try to keep it up to date with the latest developments.